The way your videos cover the entire lifecycle of games in your collection is one of the things that greatly increases the value of your reviews for me. You show us what you get rid of. You revisit games years later. If you said some new game was a 10 and the most amazing thing ever, and never month you get rid of it it would raise flags. But that doesn’t happen. You consistently prove your integrity. I think the integrity matters more than disclosures.
The fact that you have this survey and are going to try and use it for how you do content separates you from many others in this space. Why I love this channel.
The thing that blows my mind is they have all these rules for online content, but it doesn't apply to more traditional media. Companies pay millions to get their cars or drinks in a movie or tv show and at no point is any disclosure required by anyone, but yet theres discussion about a youtuber playing a game that they got for free. I think their should be transparency where stuff is coming from and when someone is being paid explicitly, but the fact that the laws only apply to certain kinds of media is mind blowing.
The first example that came to me is GM paying for GM products in the Michael Bay Transformers movie. Was there any review of a GM product in the movie? I think not. Is it even effective to sell more? I do not know.
I do not follow channels that do paid opinionated content. They know who they are! Your integrity, honesty and pursuit of genuine content is why so many tune in.
I just filled out the survey - sometime I struggled with the yes/no format - mainly cause there are gradients of interest. For example, highlighting a game in the top 100 is far different to top game when you only list three. Just shows the difficulty with designing ethics approaches.
Just filled out the poll. I think it unwise to buy any game based on one person or one channels opinion of a game. Everyone has biases and no two people match up exactly on what makes them like/dislike a game. What I do not like is when reviewers do full on reviews for kickstarter previews for games that aren’t even finished yet. I do really like your approach for previews where you have points on whether you would or would not want to back a game without giving a full on review.
I'm interested in seeing the results of the questionnaire, and I applaud you for taking the time to delve into all this. Not because i have any issue with your channel (far from it!), but because I think it's an important topic in the hobby space that nonetheless often doesn't come any farther than some loose remarks or superficial discussion. By the way for some questions I chose that things should be disclosed (such as player counts), but to me that is not so much about bias but about making the content more specific so viewers can make better judgement of whether they would feel the same. Some things are just informative and interesting haha
You’re my “go to” primarily because of your integrity, honesty and balanced approach to all reviews. You are also exceptionally consistent when you are saying something and disclosing that it’s your opinion. Same with how you acquired the game. As a former music reviewer I got all reviewed content for free and assume (whether its correct or not) that game reviewers do as well. It’s just how it generally works, so that’s never an issue for me. Anyway, just keep doing “you” and continuing to be the gold standard in the space. BGCo. Is where all others should aspire to be.
If your concern is the time taken to disclose, you might consider making a database of disclosures and then setting up a side banner that you can trigger to show the disclosures on screen. After the prework to maintain a database, it should not take much longer than it does to bookmark the video.
If you'd like to have an actual conversation about this off the record, I'm happy to. I have detailed correspondence from numerous game companies claiming they don't need to disclose anything at all, in violation of the law. I've spoken directly with the FTC about this, and yes they're going after some of the largest publishers in the industry.
Thanks David! I'll admit I'd be very surprised if the FTC actually does anything in the board game space, it's so tiny comparatively. Are you at Gencon?
@@BoardGameCo I'm not full time doing game content, just a few reviews and a couple sponsored posts a month. I'm in New England and go to Pax East. There was a $500 million dollar fine to Fortnite, and we can expect a similar large fines with the largest publishers - WotC, Asmodee, and Ravensburger.I tried to convince the person I spoke with to have smaller fines to indie publishers, of which even a single $40K fine could put out of business. I told them that they should go after the big fish first, to serve as a warning to the smaller brands.
Alex... don't beat it to death... you do a fantastic job of disclosing what needs to be said without filling your content with "unnecessary" disclosures... Keep up the great content and don't go dow the rabbit hole of looking for problems where there aren't any.
Understanding elements of bias has become a bigger point of emphasis and education in my profession as well. In general, it's important to help people educate themselves and become less susceptible to direct or even unconscious influence. For example, this is particularly true of kids and social media. As far as this discussion goes, it is a tricky line to draw because at some point, it can become tedious as a viewer. Maybe the happy medium is to write a BGG article or have a pinned comment or description item that's in all videos (just like some do with affiliate links) that discloses the nature of all your relationships. In that way, you're fully informing viewers so they can decide how to interpret a particular relationship. Then use your judgment to disclose at least the biggest points of bias on a given video without going overboard. For example, "I was given this review copy" or "here's a paid preview."
A lot of the more detailed disclosures could be summed up in text at the end of a video or in the blurb beneath it, but I do think it's important to disclose most of the factors, also one year seems like a good time for most of it (if it's a continued relationship that one year will continuously reset any ways). I'll get that down in the google form, and the fact that you do this, that you keep approaching this subject speaks highly of you and our trust in your opinion and honesty, even if we don't agree and our tastes differ.
I just filled out the survey. In general, I don't care who was paid for what. When I'm viewing "content," I'm looking for content that will inform me about a game so that I can form my own opinions based on what I know I like and how the game was described by the reviewer. It may be an "ad," but it's valuable information. As long as the information is good, I don't care who paid for it. However, one of the questions was asking about just posting a picture. If your "content" is just a picture of game (I'm thinking of an Instagram feed), that's basically just an ad. There's no information for me to learn. So that should clearly state that it's sponsored because it's effectively just an advertisement and nothing else.
Appreciate the amount of thought you said obviously put into this topic. I filled out the poll but I will say the hardest ones were if the person should disclose if they've been paid for content on other games when talking about a new game from a publisher. For me that one comes down to an understanding of the personal ethics of the individual and whether or not they will be influenced by trying to maintain that business relationship with the publisher moving forward. People like Alex I would trust to be able to make that division but certain others I might not. I would also say that it would be nice for content creators to disclose whenever they felt pressured by a publisher or game maker to provide positive content on games that felt like an overreach in any way. Even if it means potentially damaging the relationship with that publisher. A lot of this responsibility is on the game makers as well to not cause content creators to feel like they need to be under this level of pressure that they can't say anything negative about any of the publishers games or the business relationship will be in jeopardy.
I think I agree with how you approach this. Announce when paid Content comes up. Announce when talking about Gamefound. Also, during all those when you talk about what you think some folks wouldn't like, is so helpful and doesn't seem like you're trying to sell it to everyone.
Oh my goodness Alex. You have no idea how close I came to making an actual video response to the questions, I even got up and grabbed my tripod. That said, I do kind of wish I could type a manual response to a few of them, because my answers were not in the full spirit/context they were written. Also, my answers were not so much "what I want as an audience member", but more "how would I personally want my own content creation channel to be run?" Some of these were hard!
I might be in the minority but i think people over emphasize disclaimers, what's paid for what isnt....its a bit ridiculous honestly. The video game industry has been doong this a long time and they dont disclose if its a paid review ir not. When you play an online video game for the first time and accept the numerous disclaimers. Do you actually read them? I would bet 99% of people dont and they never reference the disclaimer. Online reviews are everywhere. Do they all disclose if the content is paid. Nope. Does it matter. Not really. Its an opinion that contains bias regardless whether its paid or not. What matters is if the content creator comes across as genuine. This is typically an earned trust by how the creator interacts with the community, how natural the videos appear and numerous other ways. Keep being genuine Alex and you have nothing to worry about. (Side note. I would be curious to know the age demographic for who thinks there should be disclosures for every video.)
If it's a paid review, definitely should disclose. Beyond that, I don't think content creators should have strong obligations. Adding disclosures is very helpful in informing the audience, and I appreciate them. Generally though, I use the timestamps to skip introductions where disclosures are usually present. Also your kids are adorable.
I think one way of "disclosing" could be listing your disclosure in the pinned comment; that way you can write it up once in a document and then copy and paste it and modify it, if necessary. -Just a suggestion. I have found you to be a man of integrity and honesty, but I still weigh it against my needs. I have enjoyed and will continue to enjoy your content!
Personally I don't care about disclosures. I watch your channel for entertainment, not financial advice. Even if you have bias, so what? I can rationalize my own opinions and see if we have similar tastes and I agree with your positive assessment of a game.
I really liked the survey and details to questions. I took it before your options so that they were just what I was thinking, but while I was taking it I was thinking about protecting the content creator and also protecting the consumer. It’ll be interesting to see the results, and if a second survey comes out that asks for more comments/responses around one or two of the questions.
Here is an idea: how about a network of content creators who all agrees to a certain level of ethics and disclosure (like a code). A visual badge could be created and displayed on the channel of every participants. If a few serious C.C. could get behind such a code of ethics , it could help build confidence with certain viewers. (Sorry or my English)
I don't think it is a good idea because it will sooner or later become a close group that new content creator will not be able to join, at least not from the start, and then because they are not part of the group and do not got the badge people will not watch their channels thinking they are not trust worthy, otherwise they would have had that badge.
I think disclosure should either be in your show notes or a little caption at the beginning. That way people that are familiar with, you can skip them, and it saves you the burden from remembering you need to disclose something. It’s also easy to reference for anybody That wants to know
I think you always make it very clear that you work for gamefound. I also think you do an incredible job of being as objectionable as possible. I never feel like you're selling me gamefoubd or awaken realms unless you really think the game is amazing
A lot of those questions for me were "yes, but it depends". As you mentioned, announcing every video what games on display behind you had related paid content is ridiculous, same with making such observations with top 10 lists, which are supposed to be an individual's opinion anyway. I'm pretty much on the line of absolutely needing to disclose on an individual video where you were given a free product to review or when it's paid content. I like knowing how many times approximately a game has been played before you make a review, and say what player count just to flesh out our understanding of your experience. To be quite honest Alex, I absolutely love how you've been handling things, and your transparency is why I keep coming back to your content. ... Well that and the chaos. 😋
I filled the questionnaire. It boils down to: 1) if you get paid, don't do a review for that game 2) if you ever get paid, always disclose it when discussing any game from that publisher in any form 3) disclose review copies and friendly relations when discussing a specific game in a dedicated video 3) in "top X" videos, only disclose if you ever received money from the publisher (review copies and friendly relations can be ignored) 4) do your best to disclose bias around genre preferences and how/how much the game was played (especially important for campaign games that are rarely reviewed after a substantial amount of game was played). BTW, I think you have one of the worst cases of conflicts on interest in the space and still do one of the best jobs with your disclosures and general level of transparency.
At the end of the day, it's your channel and you can talk about whatever game you like, even if you've done paid content for the same publisher in the past, are friends with them, etc. without having to give disclaimers every few minutes. You obviously are in this space and have been so successful because you have a passion for board games. Don't feel guilty about reviewing games that you like but that have some ties to pay/relationships. People shouldn't take your positive opinion about a game to be fake because of xyz relationship with a publisher. The more you try to please everyone, the more you censor yourself, and then you channel just becomes something different. And that would be a shame because your channel is great. Propbably one of the best out there
All the questions starting with "how many times you played a game when reviewing" feel less like ethics than style and preference, and I would put those in the category of 'knowing what your reviewer is like.' Sure, playing with different groups can minimize groupthink's effect on your review, but that seems like a distinct issue to the question of how commercial interactions influence reviews, which seems to be the point of this piece. Also, for me the meaning of 'should' changes for those last questions. If you fail to disclose a financial relationship (being paid to make content about a game, for example), when you _should_ have done so, that's a violation (to me) of an imperative. The "should" in the last questions feels more like "will your review be better if you do this" rather than "ethics demand that you do this." Thanks for the thoughtful content, as always.
Done with the poll. One of the most important aspects for me is transparency (within reasonable limits) and one of the reasons I like your channel so much is because you are always transparent and unbiased (within the limits of human nature). Really the only blind spot you have when it comes to bias in my opinion is CMON. But I usually not a fan of their stuff anyway so it doesn't bother me that much.
I didn't participate in the survey. But generally, my opinion is the more transparency the better. Yet I agree with you that there are limits w.r.t. both practicality and the videos still being viewable. My suggestion is to not disclose everything in the videos, but rather have a standard disclaimer like "You can find all disclosures down below in the destription". You could then list all applicable disclosures in the desription. Or, to go even further, you could have an living document/website that lists all your past and current engagements. And you simply link to this in the description. It would bother both you and the viewers less and the question on how long to disclose something would be obsolete, because you would include it in the list once and it just stays there.
These were some difficult questions. I think mostly for me, disclosure depends on one's own moral compass most of the time. If you were very enthusiastic about what you receive from a publisher, say a gas mask, or you are close with the designer and they are a friend you don't want to hurt and you as a professional reviewer think this would influence your review, then you should disclose it. What may influence some people, may mean nothing to someone else. However, I also think you cannot blame an audience member for doubting your opinion if it turns out there was undisclosed information that they think would influence your opinion. On both sides it entails a certain responsibility: self-reflection by the reviewer on their ethical orientation and personal biases and responsible consumpion of content by the viewer. No one is entirely unbiased but only an individual can decide if they think that they are influenced by certain gifts or review copies. I think the only time something goes wrong is if a reviewer knows their opinion is biased (e.g. they are paid for a promotion video) and then they don't disclose it. I would call that malintent. The rest of it is so personal that I don't think there can be general rules one way or another.
This is why I like your content so much is we agree on most of these items. I'm surprised this is such a new topic when there are very clear lines drawn in my field of work that have been set for decades. Personally I would like to see how many times a game has been played because that can very an opinion significantly. There are so many games everyone seems to love and then not even a year later no one is talking about because it doesn't last more than a few plays which is rough when you pay the high price for some of these games.
Those lines in your field of work isnt as clear cut for everybody as you feel it is for you... people are crossing those lines for gain everyday and you are just blind to it.
I think most of these have specific circumstances that may change it, like you said, the rabbit hole. I think many of them such as the games by the designer, or of the genre type of questions are more about just getting to know a reviewers opinions and tastes as you watch. I think that is just part of getting other peoples opinions of anything, games included. Thanks for talking about this, it is a very interesting topic that could, and probably should, be much bigger than just board games.
I think you do a great job with everything you do on this channel. One of my fav content creators in the space! I appreciate your honesty and I think you do a great job at. Disclosing things in general and for all those reasons I always stay update with all of your content. As far as my opinion on this topic as a whole. I feel that paid reviews should never exist. Only paid previews, game plays and how to videos should be allowed for paid content. I think reviews should never be paid for. That being said I don’t think it’s ever anything I worry about on your channel 😁
We're adults (assuming a certain demographic of watchers). In the UK we have a saying called 'buyer beware'. As long as you disclose a link to a publisher or company during THAT video (preferably at the start) it allows reasonable adults to make informed decisions. Make all the content you like from then on in...
i simply dont care about any of this stuff. i watch for informational and entertainment purposes. im not buying a game based on a reviewers opinion, ever. i 100% need to see a game played before i buy it my purchasing decisions are 100% my responsibility so no bias by a creator matters in any way i assume all creators are salespeople to some degree just by the nature of the industry ive watched playthroughs of a game, thought id love it, played it, and still didnt want to keep it. happens. so even my opinions based on all the important information isnt always 100% and it would be irresponsible to think another persons opinion would be more accurate. i approach everything i buy with the knowledge someone is trying to sell it to me. so i see no need to have disclosures as i already assume there is an agenda baked into the interaction. this isnt to disparage anyone or any company, its just how consumerism works. going in with that mindset eliminates the ability to blame someone else. as long as content isnt "get 100 minis and 300 cards" and its only 10 minis and 30 cards i think its basically fine and should be up to the creator as to what they disclose or interact with.
What if each video you have a (potentialy canned) bullet point slide inserted for 10 seconds at timestamp RELEVANT DISCLOSURES? People could pause and read if interested, without necessarily breaking up the flow of conversation for those less concerned - I would still like that you verbally express the disclosures you currently do, for those listening rather than watching. Selfishly, I find that your philosophy of disclosures very closely aligns to my own.
I have really found that content from you and creators like KoA generally do a good job with disclaimers. When it comes to obvious bribes/swag like the sword, the fault of that lies with Chip Theory Games, as I personally feel they crossed the line sending those out (Awaken Realms did the same with Stalker). That type of item is not related to actual games, so it clearly appears to be more of a bribe.
I think that if it actually had something to do with the game, like the big Galactus statue by Cmon games, it is more of a bribe than something no one really cares for other than being an iconic teaser for what the new game's theme is about. But if I am to say my real opinion about it then I don't think any of those are bribe but just promotional items in order to get viewer excited about the game and it's theme.
For the most part I'm happy with just knowing if the content was paid content. If its paid content I assume (in general not specifically with you) that the review is influenced at best and moderated at worst by the game company. I don't consider getting a review copy as 'paid content' as I think of that as a cost of doing business for the game company, not a perk to the reviewer. If the content is not paid for but you have a relationship (family/friends/business partners) that should be disclosed. Bias should also be disclosed. If you are reviewing a type of game or publisher you really like or hate that should be disclosed. I think its fine to still review them as long as viewers are aware bias could skew opinions. And finally opinionated content is fine - and to me preferred. As long as the opinions are honest or potential bias/influence is disclosed, they are welcome. (The interruptions from family are adorable and makes it easier to relate to you)
I think a lot of the later questions aren't so much a question of ethics, but a question of what makes a good, informative review. Should you disclose if you don't like game genre X, or games from Company Y? I would say no, ethically. But in terms of making an informative review, absolutely, yes. "I didn't like Mordred" is one review. "I don't like area control games and I didn't like Mordred" is another.
Your closing thoughts were very good. In general my answers align with yours. People are welcome to get paid for what they do, and I can take the videos with a grain of salt. If it starts feeling too much like advertising I'll simply stop watching those videos or people and move onto the next channel 😊
As you stated, bias exists. It is even present when a person is not aware it exists. Disclosures allow the viewer to make an informed decision based upon all factors. If you are in a position to influence others, you have a duty to them. Disclosures, stating known biases (I don't like this genre, I really like this company, I did not try this game with 2 players, etc.) all act as ways of informing the viewer. When I spoke at medical events, my first slide would always be disclosures whether it was on behalf of a pharmaceutical company or not. Furthermore, if I saw you as a patient and we discussed a medication from a company that paid me to be a speaker, I'd inform you of that. Personally, I wouldn't be a speaker for a medication I thought was ineffective or less effective than another medication, but that's not the point. Those in the audience and in my office deserved to know I might be biased because of my relationship with that pharmaceutical company. How long did I tell people? 2 years (industry standard). As a TH-camr, it won't actually interfere as much as you think. "Today we'll be discussing XYZ. Please see my comments below for my disclosures." Then in the box where you put your timestamps, you put in the disclosure. Keep it simple: Gamefound - currently employed by them Frosthaven - received review copy Cephalofair Games - received compensation in the form of airfare, hotel, and food Chip Theory Games - received customized wooden sword XYZ company - received box of crap I gave away Why tell us when you got something you gave away? Because it's still considered of value and it could benefit you. How? Let's say XYZ gave you abc but you don't want it. You give abc away on the channel and gain more viewers. Maybe you gave abc to a relative. Again, that's $$ you didn't have to spend to buy abc for them. You could even write 'XYZ company - received box of crap I threw in the trash'. Now I'll know. The disclosures can be put in all of your videos and saves you a lot of time explaining things. NOW - if you made the game (or had a significant part in it, your wife/best friend/etc. designed it, or something similar, not only should you disclose that in the comment box, but you should tell us. Do you need to inform us that the game behind you 3rd from the left was given to you? Not unless you are going to talk about that game in the video. Top 10s? Yep - it could be a game in your I Don't Want To Ever Play These Games Again list and you should disclose it. Did you buy the game with your own money? Disclose that too. The more info you give us, the more we can make an informed decision. And when someone comes at you saying, 'Alan is always so pumped about games coming up on Gamefound despite the games being trash!', people like me will say, "Well if you read his disclosure, you'd understand why he might like those games'. Happy to get into a long discourse if you'd like. Just email me. :)
Tech focused youtube channels seem to have dialed in the journalistic integreity and sponsor balance just right in my opinion. Sponsored content is for the content, they do not pay for an opinion. This separation is important as it maintains the credibility of the author and allows the audience to trust that their words are their own and not just marketing. This increases the value of reviews to the sponsor as positive reviews are then held in a much higher esteem. Win-win-win for the audience, author and publisher. Linus from Linus Tech Tips discusses this topic occasionally as their youtube channel constantly suffers from being labeled as 'shills' from angry fanboys. Note: providing products for review is fine as long as it is disclosed. Board game media is not big enough that even a moderately sized channel could not keep up with new releases, thats not even counting older games which still gather interest. I think part of the anger here stems from jealousy. Additionally people internalize their collection and simplify things down to anything they own = good, new/other games = bad.
A good handful of those last "should you disclose" questions about different groups, thoughts on genre, etc, I marked "no" because I don't think it's necessary in regards to the topic of biasness. However, I do think those points SHOULD be stated just to make a more thorough review/preview. Just an FYI, so there is at least an unofficial .01% +/- variable range on the votes for those lol.
That was a really long poll, and I am not sure how consistent my answers are. I understand the FTC position: content creators should be held to the same standard as other media outlets. They should disclose potential financial conflicts of interest (and here's the rub - "within reason"). If this is a job, meaning you receive income from it, you need to disclose that what you are providing is an advertisement. I think there should be a threshold dollar amount under which there need not be disclosure keeping in mind that providing cash, games, gifts, trips, etc. should all count. While this may be onerous, a simple solution is to keep a spreadsheet and a link listing publishers and whether they have crossed the minimal threshold in the last year. I am required by my job to disclose financial conflicts of interest, and I see no reason others should not as well. It always looks worse when these things come out after the fact (whatever that "fact" is) Obviously, as you point out this does not eliminate bias, but it does identify one potential source of bias for the viewer. There is no way to eliminate the bias that comes from the personal relationships in the board game space. In addition, all opinions, based on the nature of them being opinions, are biased. As a viewer, with time, I learn the particular biases of the content creators I follow whether that be their Gamefound job, their penchant for heavy/light games, their fawning over particular designers, or their significant other's job at a board game company. On a related note, I do think that you do a very good job trying your best to report potential conflicts of interest which is part of the reason I continue to watch your channel.
I think you do fantastic job when disclosing Alex. Just a quick disclaimer about Gamefound and if you received this copy when you do a review. If you had to disclose everything in each video, the vid would twice as long plus most people would just time stamp past it anyhow. I find its the typical problems in most industries, a few bad apples have caused a problem for everyone. Now, this is where all the junk happens and it's overkill. Just keep doing what you do Alex! Love you content!
Would it be difficult to list all your gifts/compensations on a website that you just continually update and link to in the description of each video. Maybe have boilerplate text flash on the screen at the beginning/end of the video referring people to that full disclosure location? I understand the balance between clear disclosure and bloating the content, but it seems like there are low impact ways to make the disclosure information available to those that are interested. To me, the potential issue is that if someone wanted to investigate your biases and was willing to put in the time and work to understand that fully, could they actually do it? Is the information even out there, regardless of ease of accessibility?
@@BoardGameCo a paid review is a transactional exchange, a one-and-done deal. I will trust more the description than the opinion of the game. A gift of value (I mean something special sent to a reviewer, not generic gift given to everyone at a convention), like a sword, generates a lot of lingering positive emotions. The more I think about it, the more I prefer a reviewer doing paid content to a reviewer receiving gifts. A paid review is still a conflict of interest, but it seems more limited in time.
Great idea Alex! I have been wondering for a while how you chose which games are displayed on the shelf in the your video background. Is it games you like, is it the art of the lid or is it sheer coincidence? I think it can easily give the impression that you would recommend them all and I am not sure if that is your intent. Cheers
I think that if you're feeling uncomfortable about certain questions around your content, that's an indication that the questions are important and relevant. And important and relevant questions should be answered. JMO. "I've only played this (2-7 player) game at 2 players." That's worth mentioning. It's pretty likely that a game with that wide a player count range will play differently at various player counts. "I've only played this (2-7 player) game at 2, 4, 5, and 7 players." Unless there's some reason to believe that either 3 or 6 players would provide some unique experience, that's not a big deal. Worth mentioning, because it informs the review, (you've played it repeatedly with multiple group sizes) but not important. But then I've been pretty clear (here and elsewhere) that I'm fine with review content based on any number of plays as long as relevant information is revealed. "I tried to play this game, but we abandoned it about halfway through because we decided that it's only entertaining to hit yourself in the head with a hammer once." Completely fair. (And pretty much my opinion of Munchkin. 8-) )
Some of these questions are just what makes reviews better. Stating your opinion of the genre or how many plays you got at what play count makes me trust you more as a reviewer. I think some of this content doesn't have to be stated out loud, it could be put in some kind of title card graphic that is within the first min. of every video you do and so I can pause and review that text on a graphic to make sure I'm aware of bias. :)
Honestly, bias is irrelevant because "fun" is subjective. You can give an entirely unbiased review of something, think it's the best thing since sliced bread, and I can just not enjoy it because it's all subjective. So what's the point of worrying about bias when there's no guarantee that the information will be accurate "for you" whether biased or not. Does someone giving an unbiased bad review for a game I'd like and they don't make that game worse for me? Does someone doing a paid positive review for a game I enjoy make me MY enjoyment any less real? No, and no. Someone liking or disliking something doesn't make it good or bad for anyone but them. So reviews, ultimately, are pointless, and I only occasionally watch them because they often come with details on the rules and gameplay. The fact is, I don't watch your reviews to see what you think of a game because I don't care if you enjoyed it (sorry!) I care if I will, and you're not me. I just want to know the nuts and bolts of the games. I always end up getting WAY MORE out of one "let's play" than I do out of a hundred reviews, because seeing it played and gauging my level of interest based on that gives me a better idea of if I want the game than someone's [blank]/10. Unsurprisingly, I would prefer if you did more playthroughs and fewer reviews. I tend to watch the former more than the latter. It's also, from my perspective, more entertaining content because it can be fun watching someone enjoy a game and root for them (we've been doing it with pro-sports since at least the colosseum). Personal preference, other people's mileage may vary, but yeah, I don't particularly care about reviews.
Wow, some fascinating results in that poll. 22% of people think you should disclose if a copy is a review copy, but you don't need to mention if the publisher sent you a gift along with it. My thoughts would be the opposite I guess maybe people just feel that generally a free game is worth more than a "gift". I guess if the "gift" was a gaming table or something they might agree with me!
I find your opinions are balanced and open. Ultimately, I’m just looking for an honest opinion. including biases and disclaimers is an important part of that. I don’t think it’s fair to expect reviewers to avoid “free games” or “review copies”, but I also wonder if some games would be purchased if they had to pay for them. Or would be rated so high. there are reviewers that play a game twice and then rate it- but some games get old, fast, and the replay of a game isn’t being reviewed. Which is a huge gap left open in review. Reviews become quantity over quality.
All companies who pay you should know upfront that they may be paying for a critique of their game or item that can be taken, or will be taken negatively. Only work with sponsors where you actually approve of the product and not because they’re lining your pocket with money. It’s very simple. Your viewers can be aware of these standards and at that point, everyone needs to just not worry about it. You laid it all out there for everyone to see. Your biases are are laid bare to your viewers and to the sponsors. People will trust your opinion more, so the people at which view your channel are of higher quality, which then attracts those who have a good products because the pool of customers is also of higher quality. If those sponsors make a bad products, you will be blunt with them that you do not approve and that you don’t want their sponsorship. No harm no foul. You can give private advice for your reasons behind it, but always with the asterisk that all of this should be taken with a grain of salt and does not mean you will work with them in the future. The problem is that money corrupts so you have to lay out your standards for everyone so that you’re not caught in a situation where your character gets called into question.
As I figured, this is about more than just board games but content creators in general, and I wonder why is this so hard? If a company provides you with something, just say “thank you so and so for providing this item for this video, photoshoot, whatever.” I don’t think it needs to be much more complicated than that, unless maybe there’s a long standing relationship of providing product, and then all anyone needs to say is, “thank you so and so for your continued support with this or these item(s).” And, if someone is honest and genuine and willing to risk not getting more free product, then they should be able to provide a fair judgement of an item even if said item was provided free or content was paid for. And that also means companies need to accept the risk that reviewers and players might not, ya know, like what those companies are making.
I haven’t been following the whole debate, but I think the question isn’t where does it stop? But where does it start? A nice baby step would be a standard across all content providers to display an on-screen badge stating that a review copy was provided of the game being reviewed, or whether the provider has any professional relationship with the publisher. Many forget to mention or treat it too casually, when getting a free copy automatically makes you biased. Because if you’re honest, chances are you’ll stop receiving review copies after a while because every game isn’t a hit.
I've done the poll before watching the video and I think I answered the timing questions incorrectly. I've put 'forever' in most of the responses on how long info should be disclosed, but that was based on the individual video. For example if I watch one of your review videos 5 years from now I'd want to know that the video I'm watching was paid, either directly or indirectly through gifts/travel. I don't expect you to disclose these payment in all future videos, however timing would be dependent on the gift (a mug you might mention just in that video, whereas the sword would probably need to be disclosed for longer)
"Should you disclose if you have ever done paid content for a publisher if any of their games are featured in the background of the video?" No, but only if you have 10+ games in the background and most of them are from not paid content.
I'll fill out the survey for sure. I don't want the industry to continue in the direction where companies give grand expensive gifts to reviewers. It's impossible for those gifts to not colour your feeling a certain way - at least a little. It absolutely would for me. I will straight up NOT watch any CTG reviews on channels that got the sword, yours included.
Some of the disclaimers I believe would be good to have, but maybe just in the description of the video, specially if they break the flow, like you're doing a top 10 maybe even with multiple people, just have them in the description and it's fine, if I want to know I can check myself
You know it's going to be a good one when it's being presented by Alex Radical. If there are game review producers who are getting paid to say bad games are good in order to take advantage of people, that is not okay. It might even be unlawful. It's also not a _scandal_ that the people who make games pay to create relationships with the people who make their livings talking about them. I don't understand all this grar over it. I watch _a lot_ of game reviews from all kinds of people. I have never seen somebody unduly promote a bad game. Just because a viewer doesn't like a game doesn't mean that video producers who did like it - or even just didn't hate it - are being paid to like it. People need to get a grip.
This is entirely about integrity. If you feel the content creator has integrity it does not matter if the publisher is a family member or you received a gift. Content creators with integrity will a) disclose where they feel they "could" be perceived as biased in order to attempt to diffuse that concern and b) work to review the "game" as an honest review of its quality compared to the market overall. I don't watch every content creator because I think there are some reviewers whose opinions are either biased or not comprehensive enough. I often listen to multiple reviewers as well to get differing opinions and soften any potential biases. I think it is up to the consumer making choices (not regulations) to lead to honest feedback on any product (boards games included).
For many of the questions in the survey, I said that you do not need to disclose such as your opinion of the designer. Although it may make for more informative content if you do share those types of details. I also don't care if past paid is disclosed, because you wouldn't still be talking about the game in 5 years if you didn't have a strong personal opinion about the game regardless of the original paid preview/review/etc.
I voted yes to all allowances. And I voted yes to most disclosures regarding compensation. But in the interest of not boring the audience, I think those disclosures can be written in the show notes and not delivered on camera. And I voted no to disclosures about how you played the game (# of times, playcount, etc), but I think that information is nonetheless useful to the audience.
One of your main points is that the FTC implicitly assumes a video discusses one item from a single firm, and there should be a disclaimer. The reality is that videos often discuss top 10 with several honorable mentions. Plus you might refer to an older game from several years ago (say by comparing a new game to an older one by the same or a different publisher) - keeping track of every relationship on every game is a high barrier. Bottom line, well stated.
In an ideal world, there should not be any conflict of interest nor the appearance of conflict of interest. Since we do not live in an ideal world, here are some thought in no order: - While it is true that some publishers will pay for content with the explicit instruction that the review needs to be honest even if it is a negative one, publisher are more likely to go back to reviewers who gave positive reviews. - Any and all gifts should be refused before they are sent, of sent back to the expediter. - Being friend with a designer or publisher is a conflict of interest, being friendly with one is the appearance of a conflict of interest. Both should be disclosed. - Just do not put paid game nor free received game in the background. I am sure you bought enough games to fill your background. - "disclos[ing] how many times you played a game when reviewing" is important for the quality of the review, not for conflict of interest. Same thing for player count and groups. That being said, it could go in the video description if you say in the video that the description contains more info. - A review of the rulebook should be part of the review of a game. I answer the poll while you described the poll. 😀
Every video? That's a bit too much. But when a video is a focus of that game/item, then yes, it should be disclosed in the video and in the description. And if it's one of those videos where the entire thing is paid content, like those videos Devon and Meg were doing, then I think it should be on screen at the bottom corner the entire time. This may actually be a requirement by law. I think it's channels that don't disclose that it's paid content, such as Quackalope or Tantrum House, where it becomes not okay. Getting a game to try out is one thing, but getting paid to show it, that's another level. It's all about obvious disclosure, on screen, saying it, in title, and not hiding it way down in a description that no one looks for.
Easiest poll ever. "Is it ok" = yes "Should you" = no Its ok to do what you want with your channel and no one should ever tell you what you "should" do. LOL apparently I just did do what I said others shouldn't, Oh the irony.
I’m ok with opinions on paid content as long as a) it’s disclosed that they’re being paid; b) there are positives and negatives highlighted by the content creator.
Bases on the equipment in the video, I now wonder if coffee sponsors should give out swords to promote their products. Yes I am out of context of tabletop games.
one thing another YT channel (Foster the Meeple) does that I like is if they had a paid content in the past and the game comes back up in a general unpaid top 10, or month recap. they state they did a paid video before (and to check it out) but now they are making a video that is not paid and can say what they want" and they say GOOD AND BAD things.
Easy. - Full clear disclosure of free games/merch - Full clear disclosure of payment of any kind. Bonus, goes without saying: No extortion of game publishers. (quack quack)
Did the poll. I think there's a point where adults should be adults. There are levels of bias in every piece of content out there. Like this poll shines a light on, everyone has a different level of bias acceptance. So trying to put ownership on the content creator is an impossible task. They can reach for a middle ground, but I'm tired of hearing consumers complain about bias. What's biased for one person, may be totally reasonable for another. Viewers should make their own judgment regarding the level of bias they'll accept. Content creators should disclose anything paid, but beyond that, it's up to them. It's a tricky line and you can't accommodate everyone. Your priority is to entertain and inform, not draft extensive and unnecessary bias disclaimers in every review, preview, and impression video.
Here’s the thing, Alex. It’s all person dependent. As long as you are your normal, upfront self I think whatever is okay. I think you have found a way to to be honest about both the games you play and your motivations. That’s why I support you on Patreon. You should be able to review games and make money. You want to do a good job, serving your viewers should grow your audience, AND it’s a business. I think Dice Tower also does a good job of this. Whereas, I stopped watching Rahdo and Jesse 2 years ago. The breathless excitement, combined with a lack of transparency, didn’t ring true. It was your honesty about wanting to make money that first attracted me to your channel. Continue to be forthright with your motivations and I’ll keep watching
# plays, # players, sponsor disclosure, similar games recommendation would be good enough a (pre)review. We know your taste & style. You should know your audience by now 😊 keep up the good work!
Not doing a dedicated video but my opinion so far is I'm not sold. Not negative, just not positive...we got an hour long demo of which for half of it your hand is being held. I will say I liked Bad Karmas, but I am worried this is more similar to Destinies and I think I prefer destinies...but again....the barest hint of an opinion as I need to play more.
Don’t know if the FTC discussion includes this: even small channels that actually paid for their copy should disclose. These days everyone assumes bias even when it doesn’t actually exist.
A big trap when giving one's opinion on any piece of art or work when you know the creator/designer (as a friend or maybe or just an accointance) is if you know even small details of the process or the evolution of the project and that affects your judgement without you realizing it. For example, you played a prototype and then later you play the definite version of the game and your mind goes "oh, this is much better, they improved a lot" which will make you have a better opinion of the game. Same if you talk with the designer and he/she explains some details/backstory in a casual conversation. "oh yeah, this part of the game makes no sense from the rulebook, but since I had this conversation with the designer I know why this is there and how it all makes sense". The big problem is that the anonymous buyer only has the finished product, and has no access to the whole history and/or thinking process of the designer. But as a content creator, you might factor all take that into your final opinion. This bias is what I call the "teacher problem" when a teacher does not grade the actual piece of work he has in front of him, but grades it in the context of the evolution of the student he knows ("is it better/worse?" is really not the same as "is it good?"). Therefore, every small information about your relation with the game and/or creator is important to disclose.
I see a standard 10 slides of disclaimer that play very fast at the end of each video coming up. Put it in 0.1X if you want to watch it. Seriously though for me the disclosures is important when it effects content. If you pick the games behind you BECAUSE of paid promotional then that should be disclaimed. I am very happy for that all to be done with a one line disclaimer that appears on screen that says - items in this video/the background may be paid product placement - I do not want details of each individually. Nuance that the form doesn't allow for - Gift wise I don't care about incidental/trial items (including review copies) - paid or flying half way across the country is different. Also mentioning player counts/general views of genera in reviews isn't a disclosure issue for me but very helpful in the quality of a review as how you would play the game may be different from me and lets me understand how I might see the game. Shabbat Shalom
I agree. Honestly though, who is really going to watch the disclaimer slides except Internet trolls or fan boys who don't like the opinions or views of the content presented.
I'm struggling with the "Is it ok to show enthusiasm but with no opinions when the content was paid for?" question. I understand that enthusiasm makes the content more interesting, but if someone does an enthusiastic preview, and then later says in a review that they didn't like the game, it seems like they were being disingenuous in the preview.
A video I'd like to see is "How and why do you choose the boardgames you display behind you?" Each boardgame youtuber has their glory wall of boardgames behind them. It's like if you don't have the wall, you aint legit lol But seriously, I'm curious why you choose the games you chose. They are your top 20/25 games of all time? Do they have your favorite cover art? A combination? These games get a lot of passive exposure, which is fine. I just think it's interesting how and why all these youtubers choose the games they display.
I fully expect to be in the minority for a lot of the questions... disclosure is good, but paid vs unpaid doesn't affect my interpretation of the video at all.
Put a disclaimer link in the description that links to companies you work with. Have you been paid with money? Were you paid in product? Were you paid with favors? (You get reviews first or exclusively? Special products or collaborations?) Then it is out there for anyone to look at. If the video is based on the company or game of theirs, then let viewers know at the start. Remind people your link will show any bias you might have. A creators relationships, pay checks, review copies, promotional products, special trips, ect they might receive will leave a bias opinion. Ultimately viewers have the responsibility of looking at any video as biased. They should look for other opinions if they are worried the content creator is too bias.
Hard to boil down some of these questions to yes/no. It's impossible to ignore that bias exists and publishers are going to try to influence us through their marketing. I do like the disclosures but in the end I've got no way of checking if content creators are actually been honest. I like to think I can trust most content creators to be making ethical decisions. I think the line for me is recognising the difference between a critic and an influencer. It's not a good idea to try and be both.
![[Bad] - YouTube ВСЁ? (победа VK и прощание с подписчиками)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pQ1bCOW5270/mqdefault.jpg)
The way your videos cover the entire lifecycle of games in your collection is one of the things that greatly increases the value of your reviews for me. You show us what you get rid of. You revisit games years later. If you said some new game was a 10 and the most amazing thing ever, and never month you get rid of it it would raise flags. But that doesn’t happen. You consistently prove your integrity. I think the integrity matters more than disclosures.
The fact that you have this survey and are going to try and use it for how you do content separates you from many others in this space. Why I love this channel.
The thing that blows my mind is they have all these rules for online content, but it doesn't apply to more traditional media. Companies pay millions to get their cars or drinks in a movie or tv show and at no point is any disclosure required by anyone, but yet theres discussion about a youtuber playing a game that they got for free.
I think their should be transparency where stuff is coming from and when someone is being paid explicitly, but the fact that the laws only apply to certain kinds of media is mind blowing.
Isn’t the disclosure obvious when some corporation pays a boatload of money for their stupid product to grace the screen of some movie?
The first example that came to me is GM paying for GM products in the Michael Bay Transformers movie. Was there any review of a GM product in the movie? I think not. Is it even effective to sell more? I do not know.
Yo facts
I’m looking forward to seeing others’ thoughts. I hope you do a video with the results and highlight anything that surprises you.
I think I will be...some of the results are expected and some are surprising :)
I do not follow channels that do paid opinionated content. They know who they are! Your integrity, honesty and pursuit of genuine content is why so many tune in.
I just filled out the survey - sometime I struggled with the yes/no format - mainly cause there are gradients of interest. For example, highlighting a game in the top 100 is far different to top game when you only list three. Just shows the difficulty with designing ethics approaches.
Just filled out the poll. I think it unwise to buy any game based on one person or one channels opinion of a game. Everyone has biases and no two people match up exactly on what makes them like/dislike a game. What I do not like is when reviewers do full on reviews for kickstarter previews for games that aren’t even finished yet. I do really like your approach for previews where you have points on whether you would or would not want to back a game without giving a full on review.
I'm interested in seeing the results of the questionnaire, and I applaud you for taking the time to delve into all this. Not because i have any issue with your channel (far from it!), but because I think it's an important topic in the hobby space that nonetheless often doesn't come any farther than some loose remarks or superficial discussion. By the way for some questions I chose that things should be disclosed (such as player counts), but to me that is not so much about bias but about making the content more specific so viewers can make better judgement of whether they would feel the same. Some things are just informative and interesting haha
You’re my “go to” primarily because of your integrity, honesty and balanced approach to all reviews. You are also exceptionally consistent when you are saying something and disclosing that it’s your opinion. Same with how you acquired the game. As a former music reviewer I got all reviewed content for free and assume (whether its correct or not) that game reviewers do as well. It’s just how it generally works, so that’s never an issue for me.
Anyway, just keep doing “you” and continuing to be the gold standard in the space. BGCo. Is where all others should aspire to be.
If your concern is the time taken to disclose, you might consider making a database of disclosures and then setting up a side banner that you can trigger to show the disclosures on screen. After the prework to maintain a database, it should not take much longer than it does to bookmark the video.
This was my thought if it's needed. A click on the link below for any potential disclosures
If you'd like to have an actual conversation about this off the record, I'm happy to. I have detailed correspondence from numerous game companies claiming they don't need to disclose anything at all, in violation of the law. I've spoken directly with the FTC about this, and yes they're going after some of the largest publishers in the industry.
Thanks David! I'll admit I'd be very surprised if the FTC actually does anything in the board game space, it's so tiny comparatively. Are you at Gencon?
@@BoardGameCo I'm not full time doing game content, just a few reviews and a couple sponsored posts a month. I'm in New England and go to Pax East. There was a $500 million dollar fine to Fortnite, and we can expect a similar large fines with the largest publishers - WotC, Asmodee, and Ravensburger.I tried to convince the person I spoke with to have smaller fines to indie publishers, of which even a single $40K fine could put out of business. I told them that they should go after the big fish first, to serve as a warning to the smaller brands.
Alex... don't beat it to death... you do a fantastic job of disclosing what needs to be said without filling your content with "unnecessary" disclosures... Keep up the great content and don't go dow the rabbit hole of looking for problems where there aren't any.
Understanding elements of bias has become a bigger point of emphasis and education in my profession as well. In general, it's important to help people educate themselves and become less susceptible to direct or even unconscious influence. For example, this is particularly true of kids and social media.
As far as this discussion goes, it is a tricky line to draw because at some point, it can become tedious as a viewer. Maybe the happy medium is to write a BGG article or have a pinned comment or description item that's in all videos (just like some do with affiliate links) that discloses the nature of all your relationships.
In that way, you're fully informing viewers so they can decide how to interpret a particular relationship. Then use your judgment to disclose at least the biggest points of bias on a given video without going overboard. For example, "I was given this review copy" or "here's a paid preview."
A lot of the more detailed disclosures could be summed up in text at the end of a video or in the blurb beneath it, but I do think it's important to disclose most of the factors, also one year seems like a good time for most of it (if it's a continued relationship that one year will continuously reset any ways). I'll get that down in the google form, and the fact that you do this, that you keep approaching this subject speaks highly of you and our trust in your opinion and honesty, even if we don't agree and our tastes differ.
I just filled out the survey. In general, I don't care who was paid for what. When I'm viewing "content," I'm looking for content that will inform me about a game so that I can form my own opinions based on what I know I like and how the game was described by the reviewer. It may be an "ad," but it's valuable information. As long as the information is good, I don't care who paid for it.
However, one of the questions was asking about just posting a picture. If your "content" is just a picture of game (I'm thinking of an Instagram feed), that's basically just an ad. There's no information for me to learn. So that should clearly state that it's sponsored because it's effectively just an advertisement and nothing else.
Appreciate the amount of thought you said obviously put into this topic. I filled out the poll but I will say the hardest ones were if the person should disclose if they've been paid for content on other games when talking about a new game from a publisher. For me that one comes down to an understanding of the personal ethics of the individual and whether or not they will be influenced by trying to maintain that business relationship with the publisher moving forward. People like Alex I would trust to be able to make that division but certain others I might not. I would also say that it would be nice for content creators to disclose whenever they felt pressured by a publisher or game maker to provide positive content on games that felt like an overreach in any way. Even if it means potentially damaging the relationship with that publisher. A lot of this responsibility is on the game makers as well to not cause content creators to feel like they need to be under this level of pressure that they can't say anything negative about any of the publishers games or the business relationship will be in jeopardy.
I think I agree with how you approach this.
Announce when paid Content comes up.
Announce when talking about Gamefound.
Also, during all those when you talk about what you think some folks wouldn't like, is so helpful and doesn't seem like you're trying to sell it to everyone.
Oh my goodness Alex. You have no idea how close I came to making an actual video response to the questions, I even got up and grabbed my tripod. That said, I do kind of wish I could type a manual response to a few of them, because my answers were not in the full spirit/context they were written. Also, my answers were not so much "what I want as an audience member", but more "how would I personally want my own content creation channel to be run?" Some of these were hard!
No you werent going to make a video... you are being dishonest for effect. If you are dishonest for something so small what else will you lie about?
I might be in the minority but i think people over emphasize disclaimers, what's paid for what isnt....its a bit ridiculous honestly. The video game industry has been doong this a long time and they dont disclose if its a paid review ir not. When you play an online video game for the first time and accept the numerous disclaimers. Do you actually read them? I would bet 99% of people dont and they never reference the disclaimer. Online reviews are everywhere. Do they all disclose if the content is paid. Nope. Does it matter. Not really. Its an opinion that contains bias regardless whether its paid or not. What matters is if the content creator comes across as genuine. This is typically an earned trust by how the creator interacts with the community, how natural the videos appear and numerous other ways. Keep being genuine Alex and you have nothing to worry about. (Side note. I would be curious to know the age demographic for who thinks there should be disclosures for every video.)
If it's a paid review, definitely should disclose. Beyond that, I don't think content creators should have strong obligations. Adding disclosures is very helpful in informing the audience, and I appreciate them. Generally though, I use the timestamps to skip introductions where disclosures are usually present.
Also your kids are adorable.
I think one way of "disclosing" could be listing your disclosure in the pinned comment; that way you can write it up once in a document and then copy and paste it and modify it, if necessary. -Just a suggestion. I have found you to be a man of integrity and honesty, but I still weigh it against my needs. I have enjoyed and will continue to enjoy your content!
Personally I don't care about disclosures. I watch your channel for entertainment, not financial advice. Even if you have bias, so what? I can rationalize my own opinions and see if we have similar tastes and I agree with your positive assessment of a game.
I really liked the survey and details to questions. I took it before your options so that they were just what I was thinking, but while I was taking it I was thinking about protecting the content creator and also protecting the consumer. It’ll be interesting to see the results, and if a second survey comes out that asks for more comments/responses around one or two of the questions.
Here is an idea: how about a network of content creators who all agrees to a certain level of ethics and disclosure (like a code). A visual badge could be created and displayed on the channel of every participants. If a few serious C.C. could get behind such a code of ethics , it could help build confidence with certain viewers. (Sorry or my English)
English is my second language. I usually see c.c for closed caption, the subtitles, not for content creators.
I don't think it is a good idea because it will sooner or later become a close group that new content creator will not be able to join, at least not from the start, and then because they are not part of the group and do not got the badge people will not watch their channels thinking they are not trust worthy, otherwise they would have had that badge.
Nice idea in principle, but very hard to police. If one creator decides to not disclose something, no one else knows, making the badge meaningless.
I think disclosure should either be in your show notes or a little caption at the beginning. That way people that are familiar with, you can skip them, and it saves you the burden from remembering you need to disclose something. It’s also easy to reference for anybody That wants to know
I think you always make it very clear that you work for gamefound. I also think you do an incredible job of being as objectionable as possible. I never feel like you're selling me gamefoubd or awaken realms unless you really think the game is amazing
A lot of those questions for me were "yes, but it depends". As you mentioned, announcing every video what games on display behind you had related paid content is ridiculous, same with making such observations with top 10 lists, which are supposed to be an individual's opinion anyway. I'm pretty much on the line of absolutely needing to disclose on an individual video where you were given a free product to review or when it's paid content. I like knowing how many times approximately a game has been played before you make a review, and say what player count just to flesh out our understanding of your experience. To be quite honest Alex, I absolutely love how you've been handling things, and your transparency is why I keep coming back to your content. ... Well that and the chaos. 😋
I filled the questionnaire. It boils down to:
1) if you get paid, don't do a review for that game
2) if you ever get paid, always disclose it when discussing any game from that publisher in any form
3) disclose review copies and friendly relations when discussing a specific game in a dedicated video
3) in "top X" videos, only disclose if you ever received money from the publisher (review copies and friendly relations can be ignored)
4) do your best to disclose bias around genre preferences and how/how much the game was played (especially important for campaign games that are rarely reviewed after a substantial amount of game was played).
BTW, I think you have one of the worst cases of conflicts on interest in the space and still do one of the best jobs with your disclosures and general level of transparency.
At the end of the day, it's your channel and you can talk about whatever game you like, even if you've done paid content for the same publisher in the past, are friends with them, etc. without having to give disclaimers every few minutes. You obviously are in this space and have been so successful because you have a passion for board games. Don't feel guilty about reviewing games that you like but that have some ties to pay/relationships. People shouldn't take your positive opinion about a game to be fake because of xyz relationship with a publisher. The more you try to please everyone, the more you censor yourself, and then you channel just becomes something different. And that would be a shame because your channel is great. Propbably one of the best out there
All the questions starting with "how many times you played a game when reviewing" feel less like ethics than style and preference, and I would put those in the category of 'knowing what your reviewer is like.' Sure, playing with different groups can minimize groupthink's effect on your review, but that seems like a distinct issue to the question of how commercial interactions influence reviews, which seems to be the point of this piece.
Also, for me the meaning of 'should' changes for those last questions. If you fail to disclose a financial relationship (being paid to make content about a game, for example), when you _should_ have done so, that's a violation (to me) of an imperative. The "should" in the last questions feels more like "will your review be better if you do this" rather than "ethics demand that you do this."
Thanks for the thoughtful content, as always.
Done with the poll. One of the most important aspects for me is transparency (within reasonable limits) and one of the reasons I like your channel so much is because you are always transparent and unbiased (within the limits of human nature). Really the only blind spot you have when it comes to bias in my opinion is CMON. But I usually not a fan of their stuff anyway so it doesn't bother me that much.
I didn't participate in the survey. But generally, my opinion is the more transparency the better. Yet I agree with you that there are limits w.r.t. both practicality and the videos still being viewable. My suggestion is to not disclose everything in the videos, but rather have a standard disclaimer like "You can find all disclosures down below in the destription". You could then list all applicable disclosures in the desription. Or, to go even further, you could have an living document/website that lists all your past and current engagements. And you simply link to this in the description. It would bother both you and the viewers less and the question on how long to disclose something would be obsolete, because you would include it in the list once and it just stays there.
These were some difficult questions. I think mostly for me, disclosure depends on one's own moral compass most of the time. If you were very enthusiastic about what you receive from a publisher, say a gas mask, or you are close with the designer and they are a friend you don't want to hurt and you as a professional reviewer think this would influence your review, then you should disclose it. What may influence some people, may mean nothing to someone else. However, I also think you cannot blame an audience member for doubting your opinion if it turns out there was undisclosed information that they think would influence your opinion. On both sides it entails a certain responsibility: self-reflection by the reviewer on their ethical orientation and personal biases and responsible consumpion of content by the viewer. No one is entirely unbiased but only an individual can decide if they think that they are influenced by certain gifts or review copies. I think the only time something goes wrong is if a reviewer knows their opinion is biased (e.g. they are paid for a promotion video) and then they don't disclose it. I would call that malintent. The rest of it is so personal that I don't think there can be general rules one way or another.
I very much agree with all of this
This is why I like your content so much is we agree on most of these items. I'm surprised this is such a new topic when there are very clear lines drawn in my field of work that have been set for decades. Personally I would like to see how many times a game has been played because that can very an opinion significantly. There are so many games everyone seems to love and then not even a year later no one is talking about because it doesn't last more than a few plays which is rough when you pay the high price for some of these games.
Those lines in your field of work isnt as clear cut for everybody as you feel it is for you... people are crossing those lines for gain everyday and you are just blind to it.
@@thomgizziz I never said people didn't break the law or in their words "bend them," but there are laws in place.
I think most of these have specific circumstances that may change it, like you said, the rabbit hole. I think many of them such as the games by the designer, or of the genre type of questions are more about just getting to know a reviewers opinions and tastes as you watch. I think that is just part of getting other peoples opinions of anything, games included.
Thanks for talking about this, it is a very interesting topic that could, and probably should, be much bigger than just board games.
I think you do a great job with everything you do on this channel. One of my fav content creators in the space! I appreciate your honesty and I think you do a great job at. Disclosing things in general and for all those reasons I always stay update with all of your content.
As far as my opinion on this topic as a whole. I feel that paid reviews should never exist. Only paid previews, game plays and how to videos should be allowed for paid content. I think reviews should never be paid for. That being said I don’t think it’s ever anything I worry about on your channel 😁
Thanks! I appreciate it very much.
We're adults (assuming a certain demographic of watchers). In the UK we have a saying called 'buyer beware'. As long as you disclose a link to a publisher or company during THAT video (preferably at the start) it allows reasonable adults to make informed decisions. Make all the content you like from then on in...
i simply dont care about any of this stuff. i watch for informational and entertainment purposes.
im not buying a game based on a reviewers opinion, ever.
i 100% need to see a game played before i buy it
my purchasing decisions are 100% my responsibility so no bias by a creator matters in any way
i assume all creators are salespeople to some degree just by the nature of the industry
ive watched playthroughs of a game, thought id love it, played it, and still didnt want to keep it. happens. so even my opinions based on all the important information isnt always 100% and it would be irresponsible to think another persons opinion would be more accurate.
i approach everything i buy with the knowledge someone is trying to sell it to me. so i see no need to have disclosures as i already assume there is an agenda baked into the interaction. this isnt to disparage anyone or any company, its just how consumerism works. going in with that mindset eliminates the ability to blame someone else.
as long as content isnt "get 100 minis and 300 cards" and its only 10 minis and 30 cards i think its basically fine and should be up to the creator as to what they disclose or interact with.
What if each video you have a (potentialy canned) bullet point slide inserted for 10 seconds at timestamp RELEVANT DISCLOSURES? People could pause and read if interested, without necessarily breaking up the flow of conversation for those less concerned - I would still like that you verbally express the disclosures you currently do, for those listening rather than watching. Selfishly, I find that your philosophy of disclosures very closely aligns to my own.
This is something I actually do want to do, I just haven't taken the time to do it in the way I like.
I have really found that content from you and creators like KoA generally do a good job with disclaimers. When it comes to obvious bribes/swag like the sword, the fault of that lies with Chip Theory Games, as I personally feel they crossed the line sending those out (Awaken Realms did the same with Stalker). That type of item is not related to actual games, so it clearly appears to be more of a bribe.
I think that if it actually had something to do with the game, like the big Galactus statue by Cmon games, it is more of a bribe than something no one really cares for other than being an iconic teaser for what the new game's theme is about.
But if I am to say my real opinion about it then I don't think any of those are bribe but just promotional items in order to get viewer excited about the game and it's theme.
For the most part I'm happy with just knowing if the content was paid content. If its paid content I assume (in general not specifically with you) that the review is influenced at best and moderated at worst by the game company. I don't consider getting a review copy as 'paid content' as I think of that as a cost of doing business for the game company, not a perk to the reviewer.
If the content is not paid for but you have a relationship (family/friends/business partners) that should be disclosed.
Bias should also be disclosed. If you are reviewing a type of game or publisher you really like or hate that should be disclosed. I think its fine to still review them as long as viewers are aware bias could skew opinions.
And finally opinionated content is fine - and to me preferred. As long as the opinions are honest or potential bias/influence is disclosed, they are welcome.
(The interruptions from family are adorable and makes it easier to relate to you)
I think a lot of the later questions aren't so much a question of ethics, but a question of what makes a good, informative review. Should you disclose if you don't like game genre X, or games from Company Y? I would say no, ethically. But in terms of making an informative review, absolutely, yes. "I didn't like Mordred" is one review. "I don't like area control games and I didn't like Mordred" is another.
Your closing thoughts were very good. In general my answers align with yours. People are welcome to get paid for what they do, and I can take the videos with a grain of salt. If it starts feeling too much like advertising I'll simply stop watching those videos or people and move onto the next channel 😊
Ty for this video!
As you stated, bias exists. It is even present when a person is not aware it exists. Disclosures allow the viewer to make an informed decision based upon all factors. If you are in a position to influence others, you have a duty to them. Disclosures, stating known biases (I don't like this genre, I really like this company, I did not try this game with 2 players, etc.) all act as ways of informing the viewer.
When I spoke at medical events, my first slide would always be disclosures whether it was on behalf of a pharmaceutical company or not. Furthermore, if I saw you as a patient and we discussed a medication from a company that paid me to be a speaker, I'd inform you of that. Personally, I wouldn't be a speaker for a medication I thought was ineffective or less effective than another medication, but that's not the point. Those in the audience and in my office deserved to know I might be biased because of my relationship with that pharmaceutical company. How long did I tell people? 2 years (industry standard).
As a TH-camr, it won't actually interfere as much as you think. "Today we'll be discussing XYZ. Please see my comments below for my disclosures." Then in the box where you put your timestamps, you put in the disclosure. Keep it simple:
Gamefound - currently employed by them
Frosthaven - received review copy
Cephalofair Games - received compensation in the form of airfare, hotel, and food
Chip Theory Games - received customized wooden sword
XYZ company - received box of crap I gave away
Why tell us when you got something you gave away? Because it's still considered of value and it could benefit you. How? Let's say XYZ gave you abc but you don't want it. You give abc away on the channel and gain more viewers. Maybe you gave abc to a relative. Again, that's $$ you didn't have to spend to buy abc for them. You could even write 'XYZ company - received box of crap I threw in the trash'. Now I'll know.
The disclosures can be put in all of your videos and saves you a lot of time explaining things. NOW - if you made the game (or had a significant part in it, your wife/best friend/etc. designed it, or something similar, not only should you disclose that in the comment box, but you should tell us.
Do you need to inform us that the game behind you 3rd from the left was given to you? Not unless you are going to talk about that game in the video. Top 10s? Yep - it could be a game in your I Don't Want To Ever Play These Games Again list and you should disclose it. Did you buy the game with your own money? Disclose that too. The more info you give us, the more we can make an informed decision. And when someone comes at you saying, 'Alan is always so pumped about games coming up on Gamefound despite the games being trash!', people like me will say, "Well if you read his disclosure, you'd understand why he might like those games'.
Happy to get into a long discourse if you'd like. Just email me. :)
Tech focused youtube channels seem to have dialed in the journalistic integreity and sponsor balance just right in my opinion. Sponsored content is for the content, they do not pay for an opinion. This separation is important as it maintains the credibility of the author and allows the audience to trust that their words are their own and not just marketing. This increases the value of reviews to the sponsor as positive reviews are then held in a much higher esteem. Win-win-win for the audience, author and publisher. Linus from Linus Tech Tips discusses this topic occasionally as their youtube channel constantly suffers from being labeled as 'shills' from angry fanboys.
Note: providing products for review is fine as long as it is disclosed. Board game media is not big enough that even a moderately sized channel could not keep up with new releases, thats not even counting older games which still gather interest. I think part of the anger here stems from jealousy. Additionally people internalize their collection and simplify things down to anything they own = good, new/other games = bad.
A good handful of those last "should you disclose" questions about different groups, thoughts on genre, etc, I marked "no" because I don't think it's necessary in regards to the topic of biasness. However, I do think those points SHOULD be stated just to make a more thorough review/preview. Just an FYI, so there is at least an unofficial .01% +/- variable range on the votes for those lol.
That was a really long poll, and I am not sure how consistent my answers are. I understand the FTC position: content creators should be held to the same standard as other media outlets. They should disclose potential financial conflicts of interest (and here's the rub - "within reason"). If this is a job, meaning you receive income from it, you need to disclose that what you are providing is an advertisement. I think there should be a threshold dollar amount under which there need not be disclosure keeping in mind that providing cash, games, gifts, trips, etc. should all count. While this may be onerous, a simple solution is to keep a spreadsheet and a link listing publishers and whether they have crossed the minimal threshold in the last year. I am required by my job to disclose financial conflicts of interest, and I see no reason others should not as well. It always looks worse when these things come out after the fact (whatever that "fact" is)
Obviously, as you point out this does not eliminate bias, but it does identify one potential source of bias for the viewer. There is no way to eliminate the bias that comes from the personal relationships in the board game space. In addition, all opinions, based on the nature of them being opinions, are biased. As a viewer, with time, I learn the particular biases of the content creators I follow whether that be their Gamefound job, their penchant for heavy/light games, their fawning over particular designers, or their significant other's job at a board game company.
On a related note, I do think that you do a very good job trying your best to report potential conflicts of interest which is part of the reason I continue to watch your channel.
I think you do fantastic job when disclosing Alex. Just a quick disclaimer about Gamefound and if you received this copy when you do a review. If you had to disclose everything in each video, the vid would twice as long plus most people would just time stamp past it anyhow. I find its the typical problems in most industries, a few bad apples have caused a problem for everyone. Now, this is where all the junk happens and it's overkill. Just keep doing what you do Alex! Love you content!
Would it be difficult to list all your gifts/compensations on a website that you just continually update and link to in the description of each video. Maybe have boilerplate text flash on the screen at the beginning/end of the video referring people to that full disclosure location? I understand the balance between clear disclosure and bloating the content, but it seems like there are low impact ways to make the disclosure information available to those that are interested. To me, the potential issue is that if someone wanted to investigate your biases and was willing to put in the time and work to understand that fully, could they actually do it? Is the information even out there, regardless of ease of accessibility?
^ This
This is an amazing idea, I'm in middle of working on our website and I think I'm going to add this to my to do's.
@@BoardGameCo a paid review is a transactional exchange, a one-and-done deal. I will trust more the description than the opinion of the game. A gift of value (I mean something special sent to a reviewer, not generic gift given to everyone at a convention), like a sword, generates a lot of lingering positive emotions. The more I think about it, the more I prefer a reviewer doing paid content to a reviewer receiving gifts. A paid review is still a conflict of interest, but it seems more limited in time.
Great idea Alex! I have been wondering for a while how you chose which games are displayed on the shelf in the your video background. Is it games you like, is it the art of the lid or is it sheer coincidence?
I think it can easily give the impression that you would recommend them all and I am not sure if that is your intent.
Cheers
I think that if you're feeling uncomfortable about certain questions around your content, that's an indication that the questions are important and relevant. And important and relevant questions should be answered. JMO.
"I've only played this (2-7 player) game at 2 players." That's worth mentioning. It's pretty likely that a game with that wide a player count range will play differently at various player counts.
"I've only played this (2-7 player) game at 2, 4, 5, and 7 players." Unless there's some reason to believe that either 3 or 6 players would provide some unique experience, that's not a big deal. Worth mentioning, because it informs the review, (you've played it repeatedly with multiple group sizes) but not important.
But then I've been pretty clear (here and elsewhere) that I'm fine with review content based on any number of plays as long as relevant information is revealed. "I tried to play this game, but we abandoned it about halfway through because we decided that it's only entertaining to hit yourself in the head with a hammer once." Completely fair. (And pretty much my opinion of Munchkin. 8-) )
I answered the survey. But what I really want to say is: I like the hat! Keep the hat.
Question 4 and 5 are the same - I imagine one of them should be "with opinions"
Some of these questions are just what makes reviews better. Stating your opinion of the genre or how many plays you got at what play count makes me trust you more as a reviewer. I think some of this content doesn't have to be stated out loud, it could be put in some kind of title card graphic that is within the first min. of every video you do and so I can pause and review that text on a graphic to make sure I'm aware of bias. :)
Honestly, bias is irrelevant because "fun" is subjective. You can give an entirely unbiased review of something, think it's the best thing since sliced bread, and I can just not enjoy it because it's all subjective.
So what's the point of worrying about bias when there's no guarantee that the information will be accurate "for you" whether biased or not.
Does someone giving an unbiased bad review for a game I'd like and they don't make that game worse for me? Does someone doing a paid positive review for a game I enjoy make me MY enjoyment any less real? No, and no.
Someone liking or disliking something doesn't make it good or bad for anyone but them. So reviews, ultimately, are pointless, and I only occasionally watch them because they often come with details on the rules and gameplay.
The fact is, I don't watch your reviews to see what you think of a game because I don't care if you enjoyed it (sorry!) I care if I will, and you're not me.
I just want to know the nuts and bolts of the games. I always end up getting WAY MORE out of one "let's play" than I do out of a hundred reviews, because seeing it played and gauging my level of interest based on that gives me a better idea of if I want the game than someone's [blank]/10.
Unsurprisingly, I would prefer if you did more playthroughs and fewer reviews. I tend to watch the former more than the latter. It's also, from my perspective, more entertaining content because it can be fun watching someone enjoy a game and root for them (we've been doing it with pro-sports since at least the colosseum).
Personal preference, other people's mileage may vary, but yeah, I don't particularly care about reviews.
Wow, some fascinating results in that poll. 22% of people think you should disclose if a copy is a review copy, but you don't need to mention if the publisher sent you a gift along with it. My thoughts would be the opposite I guess maybe people just feel that generally a free game is worth more than a "gift". I guess if the "gift" was a gaming table or something they might agree with me!
This question is on the poll twice in a row:
Is it ok to show enthusiasm but with no opinions when the content was paid for?
Yes! I saw it after this video went live and didn't want to edit it once people are responding.
I find your opinions are balanced and open. Ultimately, I’m just looking for an honest opinion. including biases and disclaimers is an important part of that. I don’t think it’s fair to expect reviewers to avoid “free games” or “review copies”, but I also wonder if some games would be purchased if they had to pay for them. Or would be rated so high. there are reviewers that play a game twice and then rate it- but some games get old, fast, and the replay of a game isn’t being reviewed. Which is a huge gap left open in review. Reviews become quantity over quality.
That's an appropriate shirt you're wearing for this subject. 🙂
All companies who pay you should know upfront that they may be paying for a critique of their game or item that can be taken, or will be taken negatively. Only work with sponsors where you actually approve of the product and not because they’re lining your pocket with money. It’s very simple. Your viewers can be aware of these standards and at that point, everyone needs to just not worry about it. You laid it all out there for everyone to see. Your biases are are laid bare to your viewers and to the sponsors. People will trust your opinion more, so the people at which view your channel are of higher quality, which then attracts those who have a good products because the pool of customers is also of higher quality. If those sponsors make a bad products, you will be blunt with them that you do not approve and that you don’t want their sponsorship. No harm no foul. You can give private advice for your reasons behind it, but always with the asterisk that all of this should be taken with a grain of salt and does not mean you will work with them in the future. The problem is that money corrupts so you have to lay out your standards for everyone so that you’re not caught in a situation where your character gets called into question.
To me, a lot of those situations are ok as long as the are properly disclosed (audio and video disclosure).
As I figured, this is about more than just board games but content creators in general, and I wonder why is this so hard?
If a company provides you with something, just say “thank you so and so for providing this item for this video, photoshoot, whatever.”
I don’t think it needs to be much more complicated than that, unless maybe there’s a long standing relationship of providing product, and then all anyone needs to say is, “thank you so and so for your continued support with this or these item(s).”
And, if someone is honest and genuine and willing to risk not getting more free product, then they should be able to provide a fair judgement of an item even if said item was provided free or content was paid for.
And that also means companies need to accept the risk that reviewers and players might not, ya know, like what those companies are making.
I haven’t been following the whole debate, but I think the question isn’t where does it stop? But where does it start? A nice baby step would be a standard across all content providers to display an on-screen badge stating that a review copy was provided of the game being reviewed, or whether the provider has any professional relationship with the publisher. Many forget to mention or treat it too casually, when getting a free copy automatically makes you biased. Because if you’re honest, chances are you’ll stop receiving review copies after a while because every game isn’t a hit.
I've done the poll before watching the video and I think I answered the timing questions incorrectly. I've put 'forever' in most of the responses on how long info should be disclosed, but that was based on the individual video. For example if I watch one of your review videos 5 years from now I'd want to know that the video I'm watching was paid, either directly or indirectly through gifts/travel. I don't expect you to disclose these payment in all future videos, however timing would be dependent on the gift (a mug you might mention just in that video, whereas the sword would probably need to be disclosed for longer)
"Should you disclose if you have ever done paid content for a publisher if any of their games are featured in the background of the video?" No, but only if you have 10+ games in the background and most of them are from not paid content.
That....is a very fair distinction :) While not great for a poll, I actually really really like this answer.
I'll fill out the survey for sure. I don't want the industry to continue in the direction where companies give grand expensive gifts to reviewers. It's impossible for those gifts to not colour your feeling a certain way - at least a little. It absolutely would for me. I will straight up NOT watch any CTG reviews on channels that got the sword, yours included.
Disclosure is the key part. Those who don't disclose information are being dishonest to the viewers. They are lying through omission.
Some of the disclaimers I believe would be good to have, but maybe just in the description of the video, specially if they break the flow, like you're doing a top 10 maybe even with multiple people, just have them in the description and it's fine, if I want to know I can check myself
Possible dumb question: Could this problem be solved with a quick slide before and after the videos?
You know it's going to be a good one when it's being presented by Alex Radical.
If there are game review producers who are getting paid to say bad games are good in order to take advantage of people, that is not okay. It might even be unlawful.
It's also not a _scandal_ that the people who make games pay to create relationships with the people who make their livings talking about them. I don't understand all this grar over it.
I watch _a lot_ of game reviews from all kinds of people. I have never seen somebody unduly promote a bad game. Just because a viewer doesn't like a game doesn't mean that video producers who did like it - or even just didn't hate it - are being paid to like it. People need to get a grip.
This is entirely about integrity. If you feel the content creator has integrity it does not matter if the publisher is a family member or you received a gift. Content creators with integrity will a) disclose where they feel they "could" be perceived as biased in order to attempt to diffuse that concern and b) work to review the "game" as an honest review of its quality compared to the market overall. I don't watch every content creator because I think there are some reviewers whose opinions are either biased or not comprehensive enough. I often listen to multiple reviewers as well to get differing opinions and soften any potential biases. I think it is up to the consumer making choices (not regulations) to lead to honest feedback on any product (boards games included).
For many of the questions in the survey, I said that you do not need to disclose such as your opinion of the designer. Although it may make for more informative content if you do share those types of details. I also don't care if past paid is disclosed, because you wouldn't still be talking about the game in 5 years if you didn't have a strong personal opinion about the game regardless of the original paid preview/review/etc.
You went to the trouble of making it so I filled it out 👍👍
I voted yes to all allowances. And I voted yes to most disclosures regarding compensation. But in the interest of not boring the audience, I think those disclosures can be written in the show notes and not delivered on camera. And I voted no to disclosures about how you played the game (# of times, playcount, etc), but I think that information is nonetheless useful to the audience.
One of your main points is that the FTC implicitly assumes a video discusses one item from a single firm, and there should be a disclaimer. The reality is that videos often discuss top 10 with several honorable mentions. Plus you might refer to an older game from several years ago (say by comparing a new game to an older one by the same or a different publisher) - keeping track of every relationship on every game is a high barrier. Bottom line, well stated.
In an ideal world, there should not be any conflict of interest nor the appearance of conflict of interest. Since we do not live in an ideal world, here are some thought in no order:
- While it is true that some publishers will pay for content with the explicit instruction that the review needs to be honest even if it is a negative one, publisher are more likely to go back to reviewers who gave positive reviews.
- Any and all gifts should be refused before they are sent, of sent back to the expediter.
- Being friend with a designer or publisher is a conflict of interest, being friendly with one is the appearance of a conflict of interest. Both should be disclosed.
- Just do not put paid game nor free received game in the background. I am sure you bought enough games to fill your background.
- "disclos[ing] how many times you played a game when reviewing" is important for the quality of the review, not for conflict of interest. Same thing for player count and groups. That being said, it could go in the video description if you say in the video that the description contains more info.
- A review of the rulebook should be part of the review of a game.
I answer the poll while you described the poll. 😀
Every video? That's a bit too much. But when a video is a focus of that game/item, then yes, it should be disclosed in the video and in the description. And if it's one of those videos where the entire thing is paid content, like those videos Devon and Meg were doing, then I think it should be on screen at the bottom corner the entire time. This may actually be a requirement by law.
I think it's channels that don't disclose that it's paid content, such as Quackalope or Tantrum House, where it becomes not okay. Getting a game to try out is one thing, but getting paid to show it, that's another level.
It's all about obvious disclosure, on screen, saying it, in title, and not hiding it way down in a description that no one looks for.
Easiest poll ever.
"Is it ok" = yes
"Should you" = no
Its ok to do what you want with your channel and no one should ever tell you what you "should" do. LOL apparently I just did do what I said others shouldn't, Oh the irony.
I’m ok with opinions on paid content as long as a) it’s disclosed that they’re being paid; b) there are positives and negatives highlighted by the content creator.
Bases on the equipment in the video, I now wonder if coffee sponsors should give out swords to promote their products. Yes I am out of context of tabletop games.
Lol
@@BoardGameCo 🥷
one thing another YT channel (Foster the Meeple) does that I like is if they had a paid content in the past and the game comes back up in a general unpaid top 10, or month recap. they state they did a paid video before (and to check it out) but now they are making a video that is not paid and can say what they want" and they say GOOD AND BAD things.
Easy.
- Full clear disclosure of free games/merch
- Full clear disclosure of payment of any kind.
Bonus, goes without saying: No extortion of game publishers. (quack quack)
Did the poll. I think there's a point where adults should be adults. There are levels of bias in every piece of content out there. Like this poll shines a light on, everyone has a different level of bias acceptance.
So trying to put ownership on the content creator is an impossible task. They can reach for a middle ground, but I'm tired of hearing consumers complain about bias. What's biased for one person, may be totally reasonable for another. Viewers should make their own judgment regarding the level of bias they'll accept. Content creators should disclose anything paid, but beyond that, it's up to them.
It's a tricky line and you can't accommodate everyone. Your priority is to entertain and inform, not draft extensive and unnecessary bias disclaimers in every review, preview, and impression video.
All this disclosure stuff doesn’t really bother me. I filter what anyone says and assume bias exists. Buyer beware.
Here’s the thing, Alex. It’s all person dependent.
As long as you are your normal, upfront self I think whatever is okay. I think you have found a way to to be honest about both the games you play and your motivations. That’s why I support you on Patreon. You should be able to review games and make money. You want to do a good job, serving your viewers should grow your audience, AND it’s a business. I think Dice Tower also does a good job of this.
Whereas, I stopped watching Rahdo and Jesse 2 years ago. The breathless excitement, combined with a lack of transparency, didn’t ring true.
It was your honesty about wanting to make money that first attracted me to your channel. Continue to be forthright with your motivations and I’ll keep watching
# plays, # players, sponsor disclosure, similar games recommendation would be good enough a (pre)review. We know your taste & style. You should know your audience by now 😊 keep up the good work!
I may have misread the fourth and fifth questions, but they appeared to be identical?
Hey Alex, I would love to know your opinion of the Teburu Vampire game. Are you not going to give it because of doing the paid play-through?
Not doing a dedicated video but my opinion so far is I'm not sold. Not negative, just not positive...we got an hour long demo of which for half of it your hand is being held. I will say I liked Bad Karmas, but I am worried this is more similar to Destinies and I think I prefer destinies...but again....the barest hint of an opinion as I need to play more.
@@BoardGameCo Yeah, I'm currently on the fence about it. I'm going to try it out at Gen Con to help me decide.
gifts, sponsor relations are up to your policy. If you're a purchasing manager hired by us, then you shouldn't😅
Don’t know if the FTC discussion includes this: even small channels that actually paid for their copy should disclose. These days everyone assumes bias even when it doesn’t actually exist.
A big trap when giving one's opinion on any piece of art or work when you know the creator/designer (as a friend or maybe or just an accointance) is if you know even small details of the process or the evolution of the project and that affects your judgement without you realizing it. For example, you played a prototype and then later you play the definite version of the game and your mind goes "oh, this is much better, they improved a lot" which will make you have a better opinion of the game. Same if you talk with the designer and he/she explains some details/backstory in a casual conversation. "oh yeah, this part of the game makes no sense from the rulebook, but since I had this conversation with the designer I know why this is there and how it all makes sense". The big problem is that the anonymous buyer only has the finished product, and has no access to the whole history and/or thinking process of the designer. But as a content creator, you might factor all take that into your final opinion. This bias is what I call the "teacher problem" when a teacher does not grade the actual piece of work he has in front of him, but grades it in the context of the evolution of the student he knows ("is it better/worse?" is really not the same as "is it good?").
Therefore, every small information about your relation with the game and/or creator is important to disclose.
That's why we say there is bias with everything. People have to understand it's impossible to have a non bias review
I see a standard 10 slides of disclaimer that play very fast at the end of each video coming up. Put it in 0.1X if you want to watch it. Seriously though for me the disclosures is important when it effects content.
If you pick the games behind you BECAUSE of paid promotional then that should be disclaimed. I am very happy for that all to be done with a one line disclaimer that appears on screen that says - items in this video/the background may be paid product placement - I do not want details of each individually.
Nuance that the form doesn't allow for - Gift wise I don't care about incidental/trial items (including review copies) - paid or flying half way across the country is different. Also mentioning player counts/general views of genera in reviews isn't a disclosure issue for me but very helpful in the quality of a review as how you would play the game may be different from me and lets me understand how I might see the game.
Shabbat Shalom
Very good points! I agree with you very much.
I agree. Honestly though, who is really going to watch the disclaimer slides except Internet trolls or fan boys who don't like the opinions or views of the content presented.
I'm struggling with the "Is it ok to show enthusiasm but with no opinions when the content was paid for?" question. I understand that enthusiasm makes the content more interesting, but if someone does an enthusiastic preview, and then later says in a review that they didn't like the game, it seems like they were being disingenuous in the preview.
Oh I completely understand. That's why it's a question 🙂
Wow, no random comment for an outro those macaroons must be ready. 😂
A video I'd like to see is "How and why do you choose the boardgames you display behind you?"
Each boardgame youtuber has their glory wall of boardgames behind them. It's like if you don't have the wall, you aint legit lol But seriously, I'm curious why you choose the games you chose. They are your top 20/25 games of all time? Do they have your favorite cover art? A combination? These games get a lot of passive exposure, which is fine. I just think it's interesting how and why all these youtubers choose the games they display.
It's a question I've answered on live streams :) But happy to do a full video on it.
I fully expect to be in the minority for a lot of the questions... disclosure is good, but paid vs unpaid doesn't affect my interpretation of the video at all.
The problem with government regulations is that they tend to be either way too much or almost no regulation at all.
Put a disclaimer link in the description that links to companies you work with. Have you been paid with money? Were you paid in product? Were you paid with favors? (You get reviews first or exclusively? Special products or collaborations?) Then it is out there for anyone to look at.
If the video is based on the company or game of theirs, then let viewers know at the start. Remind people your link will show any bias you might have.
A creators relationships, pay checks, review copies, promotional products, special trips, ect they might receive will leave a bias opinion.
Ultimately viewers have the responsibility of looking at any video as biased. They should look for other opinions if they are worried the content creator is too bias.
Hard to boil down some of these questions to yes/no. It's impossible to ignore that bias exists and publishers are going to try to influence us through their marketing. I do like the disclosures but in the end I've got no way of checking if content creators are actually been honest. I like to think I can trust most content creators to be making ethical decisions. I think the line for me is recognising the difference between a critic and an influencer. It's not a good idea to try and be both.